Four Supreme Court Justices Weigh in on How June's Gay Marriage Decision Was Improper

[Skylar]

This is the part of the conversation where Sil alludes that gay men adopt boys just so they can fuck them.

Its shocking how much of Sil's reasoning centers around graphic, obsessive thoughts about men having sex with boys. With Sil going into disturbingly elaborate detail.

 

[bodecea]

No comments about the phenomenon where gay men overhwelmingly like to adopt boys eh? Nothing on the OP's "the crap will hit the fan when Chuck and Dave" want to force catholic adoption agencies to disgorge boys into their custody? Not one word about that eh? Telling.

How odd. How many gay couples (men) do you know who have adopted? I know several, and most of the ones I know adopted girls or, if they adopted more than one child, one of each.

 

[Skylar]

No comments about the phenomenon where gay men overhwelmingly like to adopt boys eh? Nothing on the OP's "the crap will hit the fan when Chuck and Dave" want to force catholic adoption agencies to disgorge boys into their custody? Not one word about that eh? Telling.

How odd. How many gay couples (men) do you know who have adopted? I know several, and most of the ones I know adopted girls or, if they adopted more than one child, one of each.

Ah, but remember Silly's standard of evidence: imagination. If its been imagined in Silly's head, then it must be.

 

[SwimExpert]

How odd. How many gay couples (men) do you know who have adopted? I know several, and most of the ones I know adopted girls

Which goes to prove that teh gayz are short sighted. Sure, girls seem easier when they're little. But god help you when they yet to their teens. Jesus fucking Christ if those evil little she-heathens don't make death row seem like a valid lifestyle choice.

Oh wait...I think I misunderstood the discussion topic. My bad.

 

[Silhouette]

It seems like the choir is also unaware of the topic. It's about radical social change to children forced upon the 50 states without the consent of the 100s of millions...by just 5 people who declared like tyrants "this conversation is over"..

 

[Davros]

It seems like the choir is also unaware of the topic. It's about radical social change to children forced upon the 50 states without the consent of the 100s of millions...by just 5 people who declared like tyrants "this conversation is over"..

What's better for a child ... being raised in an orphanage or being adopted by gays? The vast majority of children will continue to be raised by either single parents or a mom and a dad.

 

[auditor0007]

THIS THREAD KEEPS GETTING DELETED EVERY DAY NOW FOR NO REASON. THERE IS NO MODERATOR MESSAGE, NO WARNING. THE STAFF JUST SIMPLY DELETES IT. I WILL REPOST IT EVERY DAY (I have it saved now) UNTIL THE STAFF HERE GIVES A LEGITIMATE REASON FOR THIS THREAD THAT GOT THOUSANDS OF VIEWS WITHIN THE FIRST WEEK AND HUNDREDS OF REPLIES "CAN'T BE DISCUSSED AT USMB"..

From this link: http://www.nationaljournal.com/s/25...nst-supreme-courts-huge-gay-marriage-decision

And now also this one merged with the shut down one too: Four Supreme Court Justices Summarize How June's Gay-Marriage Decision Was Improper/Illegal | Page 186 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Chief Justice John Roberts
Roberts’s argument centered around the need to preserve states’ rights rather than follow the turn of public opinion. In ruling in favor of gay marriage, he said, “Five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law.”

Justice Antonin Scalia
According to Scalia, the majority ruling represents a “judicial Putsch.”
Scalia wrote that while he has no personal opinions on whether the law should allow same-sex marriage, he feels very strongly that it is not the place of the Supreme Court to decide.
“Until the courts put a stop to it, public debate over same-sex marriage displayed American democracy at its best,” Scalia wrote. “But the Court ends this debate, in an opinion lacking even a thin veneer of law.”

Justice Clarence Thomas

Thomas, echoing a grievance expressed by many conservative politicians, also lamented that the Supreme Court’s decision is enshrining a definition of marriage into the Constitution in a way that puts it “beyond the reach of the normal democratic process for the entire nation.”

Justice Samuel Alito
Alito also reaffirmed his position that there is no way to confirm what the outcome of gay marriage may be on the institution of traditional marriage, and therefore the Court is and should not be in a position to take on the topic...“At present, no one—including social scientists, philosophers, and historians—can predict with any certainty what the long-term ramifications of widespread acceptance of same-sex marriage will be. And judges are certainly not equipped to make such an assessment,” Alito wrote. Alito said that traditional marriage has existed between a man and woman for one key reason: children.

As to that last point: Should Kids Have Had Representation at the Marriage-Contract Revision Hearing? | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Now, I'm not a super powerful lawyer but it seems to me there may be simple contract case law that says if a contract is up for radical revision, the parties who are tacitly signed on to that contract, like children or the states that look after them as future citizens, must have representation at the revision-table.

Not only did that not happen for children and the states' interest in protecting them and their own fiscal future directly impacted by what happens to them growing up, but when adult children raised in gay homes submitted amicus briefs to that revision tribunal, the tribunal (The Fascist-Five) flatly ignored their pleas that they longed for both a mother and father in their home; and that longing damaged them.

Not one word that I know of in June's Opinion addressed these contract parties' concerns. Nor were there attorneys present at the hearing as guardians ad litem for childrens' voices at the table. The most important parties to the marriage contract were systematically barred from the table discussing its radical revision. Not only would contract case law come into play here, but also federal child endangerment statutes. Neglecting to allow a child's voice to cry out in protest is still neglect.

Thomas writes further:

“In our society, marriage is not simply a governmental institution; it is a religious institution as well,” Thomas wrote. “Today’s decision might change the former, but it cannot change the latter. It appears all but inevitable that the two will come into conflict, particularly as individuals and churches are confronted with demands to participate in and endorse civil marriages between same-sex couples.”

And what do you know? Several cases are on their way back to the Court in less than 6 months time on that precise loggerhead of Law. The crap will really hit the fan when Chuck & Dave go to suing a catholic adoption agency for refusing to adopt little boys to them.

Of course the four who voted against it are going to tell us how it was improper.

 

[Silhouette]

It seems like the choir is also unaware of the topic. It's about radical social change to children forced upon the 50 states without the consent of the 100s of millions...by just 5 people who declared like tyrants "this conversation is over"..

What's better for a child ... being raised in an orphanage or being adopted by gays? The vast majority of children will continue to be raised by either single parents or a mom and a dad.

Two wrongs don't make a right. I'm sure that it's better for a child in the wilderness to be adopted by wolves than it is for them to try to fend for themselves. But that doesn't mean wolves make the best parents for a child.

A child deserves an institution subsidized by the state to promote their best and fullest interest. States, for their monetary losses in tax breaks to "marrieds" now don't get that benefit to their future citizens. The 5 Justices in DC just took over custodial rights of states over their own orphans and made radical changes in the requirements of adoption to the child's detriment.

That's what you call "judicial overreach".

 

[Silhouette]

As to the Chuck and Dave question..: Post June 2015: How to Adopt a Child if you are LGBT | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[Silhouette]

I think that's why the Pope came here actually....the Chuck and Dave issue...

 

[Silhouette]

WASHINGTON, D.C., September 30, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) -- Pope Francis' most important U.S. meeting may not have been with President Obama or Congress -- but instead with a small, soft-spoken clerk from Kentucky...On Tuesday, Inside the Vatican reported that the pope met Kim Davis at the Vatican Embassy, shortly before His Holiness departed Washington, D.C. The embattled Kentucky clerk told the publication that Francis thanked Davis "for your courage," and they exchanged hugs...."Stay strong," the pontiff told Davis, giving both her and her husband a rosary. "Please pray for me," he requested, a request Davis says she also made -- and, she says, the pope "assured me that he would pray for me Pope Francis met secretly with Kim Davis, told her to ‘stay strong’

Now, last time I checked, Sotomayor & Kennedy are both catholics.

Just sayin'. When this reaches their Bench, the Davis case, the implied message of "you're not getting into Heaven" might play a role.

Now then Sotomayor is likely a CINO "catholic in name only", certain she will be saved on judgment day no matter what. But I think Kennedy is more old school and was raised believing the Pope is the direct mouthpiece of God.

Besides, I'll bet you he has had regrets since June; especially given how quickly the 1st Amendment was put in jail...and how in the manic whirlwind of Obamaism "change!" (no matter what) he forgot to invite children to the contract revision table last Spring so their lawyers could argue how it might not be prudent to force 50 states to deprive them legally of either a mother or father "in marriage"..

 

[bodecea]

WASHINGTON, D.C., September 30, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) -- Pope Francis' most important U.S. meeting may not have been with President Obama or Congress -- but instead with a small, soft-spoken clerk from Kentucky...On Tuesday, Inside the Vatican reported that the pope met Kim Davis at the Vatican Embassy, shortly before His Holiness departed Washington, D.C. The embattled Kentucky clerk told the publication that Francis thanked Davis "for your courage," and they exchanged hugs...."Stay strong," the pontiff told Davis, giving both her and her husband a rosary. "Please pray for me," he requested, a request Davis says she also made -- and, she says, the pope "assured me that he would pray for me Pope Francis met secretly with Kim Davis, told her to ‘stay strong’

Now, last time I checked, Sotomayor & Kennedy are both catholics.

Just sayin'. When this reaches their Bench, the Davis case, the implied message of "you're not getting into Heaven" might play a role.

The "Davis case"....lol

 

[Silhouette]

Well, the "Davis case" just seated a republican in the governor's office in KY. So, all in all, I'd say so far it is quite a case.

Matt Bevin, Kentucky's new governor-elect, is a huge Kim Davis fan Republican nominee, Matt Bevin defeated Democratic Attorney General Jack Conway to become the next governor of Kentucky....The new governor elect also made a new friend over the summer..... Kentucky clerk Kim Davis Matt Bevin, Kentucky's new governor-elect, is a huge Kim Davis fan

Your cult is turning purple states bright fire-engine red one after the other.. (too bad for all the other good democratic causes)..

Texas' "bathroom law" went down with over 60% opposed (and not just opposed to the law itself but also to the mindset of those who would propose such a thing). Here's how the media handled it:

While I didn’t vote (and couldn’t) it was fun to watch a decisive defeat on election night. As I said, you could tell that this would happen since a couple of weeks before the election the reporting on HERO polls magically ceased. No public predictions about the looming defeat were aired. (Other than on a few rightwing AM radio stations.)
The episode resembled what it must have been like during some eastern European elections under communism. One sided “news” and biased reporting. Staged propaganda events using imported celebrities (if an aging Sally Field can be considered such.) The only difference was that here they actually had to more or less honestly count the votes. For once, the Comrades lost.

Will Ohio be next? The Carolinas?

 

[Skylar]

WASHINGTON, D.C., September 30, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) -- Pope Francis' most important U.S. meeting may not have been with President Obama or Congress -- but instead with a small, soft-spoken clerk from Kentucky...On Tuesday, Inside the Vatican reported that the pope met Kim Davis at the Vatican Embassy, shortly before His Holiness departed Washington, D.C. The embattled Kentucky clerk told the publication that Francis thanked Davis "for your courage," and they exchanged hugs...."Stay strong," the pontiff told Davis, giving both her and her husband a rosary. "Please pray for me," he requested, a request Davis says she also made -- and, she says, the pope "assured me that he would pray for me Pope Francis met secretly with Kim Davis, told her to ‘stay strong’

Now, last time I checked, Sotomayor & Kennedy are both catholics.

Just sayin'. When this reaches their Bench, the Davis case, the implied message of "you're not getting into Heaven" might play a role.

The "Davis case"....lol

Silly's has hallucinated a supreme court case that doesn't exist. And then made elaborate predictions of the outcome her non-existent supreme court case.

It's what mental illness looks like in print.

 

[Silhouette]

So, you're saying that Christians being thrown in jail for not promoting homosexuality as normal behavior WON'T wind up in front of the SCOTUS?

 

[Skylar]

So, you're saying that Christians being thrown in jail for not promoting homosexuality as normal behavior WON'T wind up in front of the SCOTUS?

Kim Davis won't. The USSC has already rejected her request for cert.

Twice.

But hey, tell us more about the June ruling for Kim's case.

 

[Silhouette]

Kim Davis won't. The USSC has already rejected her request for cert.

Twice.

But hey, tell us more about the June ruling for Kim's case.

Ok, the Oregon bakers then. Or the next Christian brow-beaten by a judge for not bowing at the rainbow altar..

 

[Skylar]

Kim Davis won't. The USSC has already rejected her request for cert.

Twice.

But hey, tell us more about the June ruling for Kim's case.

Ok, the Oregon bakers then.

Every case of supposed 'Christian persecution' that petitioned cert so far this year has been denied. Making your imaginary 'June ruling' implausible.

But hey, don't let reality get in the way of your little pretend game. Tell us about Kim's June ruling anyway.

 

[Silhouette]

From this link: Supreme Court Justice Shuts Down Gay Marriage Lawyer With One PERFECT Question

Justice Samuel Alito raised a revealing question to attorney Mary Bonauto, who was arguing in favor of same-sex marriage before the justices.

Bonauto argued before the court that homosexuals are being denied their constitutional rights to equal protection and due process under the law by not being permitted to marry in all the states.

Justice Alito turned the tables on Bonauto, asking if the court rules in her clients’ favor and overturns state laws defining marriage as between one man and one woman, how can others who believe they are not being treated equally by the current definition realistically be denied. He offered the example of polygamy.

Bonauto responded that the law could keep the definition as being only between two people, because there is usually some form of coercion in polygamist relationships.

Alito:
Well, what if…these are four people, two men and two women… And let’s say they’re all consenting adults, highly educated. They’re all lawyers. What would be the ground under – under the logic of the decision you would like us to hand down in this case – what would be the logic of denying them the same right?

Bonauto responded:
Number one, I assume the states would rush in and say that when you’re talking about multiple people joining into a relationship, that that is not the same thing that we’ve had in marriage, which is on the mutual support and consent of two people…

And that is where Alito revealed her contradiction:
But, well, I don’t know what kind of a distinction that is because a marriage between two people of the same sex is not something that we have had before.
*******

So the LGBT advocate was saying "states would rush in and shut down plural marriages, even while consenting happy adults were involved, because its been traditional that marriage is only between two people."

Then judge Alito responded "yes, but gay marriage is not something that's been traditional either".

The essence of the gay marriage advocate's argument was that "polygamy is new and icky to society". And so is gay marriage...worse even than polylgamy. Because polygamy at least gives children in the home both a vital mother and father. Gay marriage is the complete undoing of the reasons marriage came about in the first place: to keep a mother and father in the home with children.

 

[Skylar]

From this link: Supreme Court Justice Shuts Down Gay Marriage Lawyer With One PERFECT Question

Justice Samuel Alito raised a revealing question to attorney Mary Bonauto, who was arguing in favor of same-sex marriage before the justices.

Bonauto argued before the court that homosexuals are being denied their constitutional rights to equal protection and due process under the law by not being permitted to marry in all the states.

Justice Alito turned the tables on Bonauto, asking if the court rules in her clients’ favor and overturns state laws defining marriage as between one man and one woman, how can others who believe they are not being treated equally by the current definition realistically be denied. He offered the example of polygamy.
Bonauto responded that the law could keep the definition as being only between two people, because there is usually some form of coercion in polygamist relationships.

Alito:
Well, what if…these are four people, two men and two women… And let’s say they’re all consenting adults, highly educated. They’re all lawyers. What would be the ground under – under the logic of the decision you would like us to hand down in this case – what would be the logic of denying them the same right?
Bonauto responded:
Number one, I assume the states would rush in and say that when you’re talking about multiple people joining into a relationship, that that is not the same thing that we’ve had in marriage, which is on the mutual support and consent of two people…

And that is where Alito revealed her contradiction:
But, well, I don’t know what kind of a distinction that is because a marriage between two people of the same sex is not something that we have had before.
*******

So the LGBT advocate was saying "states would rush in and shut down plural marriages, even while consenting happy adults were involved, because its been traditional that marriage is only between two people."

Then judge Alito responded "yes, but gay marriage is not something that's been traditional either".

The essence of the gay marriage advocate's argument was that "polygamy is new and icky to society". And so is gay marriage...worse even than polylgamy. Because polygamy at least gives children in the home both a vital mother and father. Gay marriage is the complete undoing of the reasons marriage came about in the first place: to keep a mother and father in the home with children.

If gay marriage makes polygamy legal.....why then would hasn't gay marriage ever made polygamy legal?