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

[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.

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

What? Maybe because the Brown family if UT/NV are waiting until after the next election to appeal to the SCOTUS. I believe they are democrats. They've been waiting a long time to get their case up there.

You're saying this new in the game, just months out from June's decision "since no polygamists have brought a case before SCOTUS yet, it will never happen."

Well THERE'S something you can hang your hat on !

 

[Skylar]

What? Maybe because the Brown family if UT/NV are waiting until after the next election to appeal to the SCOTUS. I believe they are democrats. They've been waiting a long time to get their case up there.

Who says the Brown family in UT/NV are waiting until after the next election to appeal the SCOTUS. And who says they are democrats?

Remember.....you just making shit up isn't actually evidence.

 

[mdk]

Too bad we can't harness impotent rage as an alternative energy source.

 

[Carla_Danger]

Yeah, it's funny when free speech is silently killed.

No, we're laughing at your foot stomping hissy fit.

So there is a "we". Thanks for admitting it finally... If anyone had doubts this is a cult acting in concert methodically towards an Agenda, mdk just nudged your doubts a little further away..

I'm not laughing. Your obsession with homosexuals, at the expense of your own life, is very sad to watch. Now you at war with the mods, who have frankly had it I suspect with your obsessive need to repeat the same failed arguments endlessly. Your arguments are laughable, but not your desperate need to post them over and over again.

I agree, I think it's sad. Can you imagine how miserable a person must be to post on this one topic, day in and day out? It's got to be taking a toll on poor Silhouette's health. I have no idea what she thinks she's accomplishing by posting continuously on this subject, a subject that has no direct bearing on her life. Maybe she needs to get out of the house? Maybe she needs to get laid?

 

[Skylar]

Yeah, it's funny when free speech is silently killed.

No, we're laughing at your foot stomping hissy fit.

So there is a "we". Thanks for admitting it finally... If anyone had doubts this is a cult acting in concert methodically towards an Agenda, mdk just nudged your doubts a little further away..

I'm not laughing. Your obsession with homosexuals, at the expense of your own life, is very sad to watch. Now you at war with the mods, who have frankly had it I suspect with your obsessive need to repeat the same failed arguments endlessly. Your arguments are laughable, but not your desperate need to post them over and over again.

I agree, I think it's sad. Can you imagine how miserable a person must be to post on this one topic, day in and day out? It's got to be taking a toll on poor Silhouette's health. I have no idea what she thinks she's accomplishing by posting continuously on this subject, a subject that has no direct bearing on her life. Maybe she needs to get out of the house? Maybe she needs to get laid?

Its worse than you think. Sil has actually started an entire thread on how much the discussion of this topic harms her. How it damages her personal life, hurts her emotionally, and erodes her physical health. How she had to stop posting for the sake of her own life.

And yet here she is. Her obsession with homosexuals is so consuming she's willing to use her own health as tinder to feed it.

This is what mental illness looks like.

 

[mdk]

Mental Silness.

 

[mdk]

Mentally Sil is pretty comical as well. lol

 

[Carla_Danger]

Yeah, it's funny when free speech is silently killed.

No, we're laughing at your foot stomping hissy fit.

So there is a "we". Thanks for admitting it finally... If anyone had doubts this is a cult acting in concert methodically towards an Agenda, mdk just nudged your doubts a little further away..

I'm not laughing. Your obsession with homosexuals, at the expense of your own life, is very sad to watch. Now you at war with the mods, who have frankly had it I suspect with your obsessive need to repeat the same failed arguments endlessly. Your arguments are laughable, but not your desperate need to post them over and over again.

I agree, I think it's sad. Can you imagine how miserable a person must be to post on this one topic, day in and day out? It's got to be taking a toll on poor Silhouette's health. I have no idea what she thinks she's accomplishing by posting continuously on this subject, a subject that has no direct bearing on her life. Maybe she needs to get out of the house? Maybe she needs to get laid?

Its worse than you think. Sil has actually started an entire thread on how much the discussion of this topic harms her. How it damages her personal life, hurts her emotionally, and erodes her physical health. How she had to stop posting for the sake of her own life.

And yet here she is. Her obsession with homosexuals is so consuming she's willing to use her own health as tinder to feed it.

This is what mental illness looks like.

Why am I not surprised to learn this? Too bad there's not a hotline we can call to get her some help.

 

[Silhouette]

I agree, I think it's sad. Can you imagine how miserable a person must be to post on this one topic, day in and day out? It's got to be taking a toll on poor Silhouette's health. I have no idea what she thinks she's accomplishing by posting continuously on this subject, a subject that has no direct bearing on her life. Maybe she needs to get out of the house? Maybe she needs to get laid?

Sure, and maybe all those people who just voted down the bathroom bill in Texas, turning that purplish state back bright red or the folks in KY who voted in the republican who snuggled up to Kim Davis just prior to the election all just "need to get out of the house" or "get laid"?

That's your solution to everything: sex. And it's why people are fighting you still and always will on marriage (children/adoption rights). And it's why your cult is doomed to failure. Every cult that espouses beyond-excessive indulgence in fleshy obsessions is always doomed. Grab an ancient civilizations book while you're at the library some day.

 

[Carla_Danger]

I agree, I think it's sad. Can you imagine how miserable a person must be to post on this one topic, day in and day out? It's got to be taking a toll on poor Silhouette's health. I have no idea what she thinks she's accomplishing by posting continuously on this subject, a subject that has no direct bearing on her life. Maybe she needs to get out of the house? Maybe she needs to get laid?

Sure, and maybe all those people who just voted down the bathroom bill in Texas, turning that purplish state back bright red or the folks in KY who voted in the republican who snuggled up to Kim Davis just prior to the election all just "need to get out of the house" or "get laid"?

That's your solution to everything: sex. And it's why people are fighting you still and always will on marriage (children/adoption rights). And it's why your cult is doomed to failure. Every cult that espouses beyond-excessive indulgence in fleshy obsessions is always doomed. Grab an ancient civilizations book while you're at the library some day.

Except you are the one making yourself ill. I am healthy as a horse. I am a responsible adult that understands sex is a natural part of life, and I understand that the sex lives of others is none of my business, and its also none of yours.

 

[Silhouette]

Except you are the one making yourself ill. I am healthy as a horse. I am a responsible adult that understands sex is a natural part of life, and I understand that the sex lives of others is none of my business, and its also none of yours.

But it is the business of children caught up in fatherless or motherless "marriages"... I could give a fuck about what adults do in their bedroom, but when they try to make that kink a part of a child's life in a real and tangible way to that child's detriment (institutional deprivation of vital role model) THAT is when everyone who is a sensible adult should be concerned. One of the Justices spoke out about this, it may have been Scalia, when the gays were working on one of the increments in their plan on Lawrence v Texas. The Justice said something to the effect of "just because you can do this in your bedroom without getting in trouble, doesn't mean you can bring it later into marriage". And what do you know? He sensed in a phrophetic way exactly what they had in mind all along: involving children in what they do.

You think you're healthy as a horse, but I've got news for you...any adult who turns their back on logic and the welfare of children in favor of fitting in and capitulating to a social trend, is not a healthy person.

 

[Silhouette]

How healthy of an adult can you be if you are advocating that neglecting children's needs is "perfectly fine"? You are by all standards insane and not well if that's the case.

 

[Silhouette]

Justice Roberts said further:

In his dissenting opinion -- which he read from the bench for the first time in his nearly 10 years as chief justice -- Roberts charged Friday that the court had no right to intervene in what should be a democratic debate by the people, at the state level, over same-sex marriage.
"This court is not a legislature," he wrote. "Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us. Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be."
As for the state's role, he said: "The fundamental right to marry does not include a right to make a State change its definition of marriage." ‘Court is not a legislature’: Roberts rips gay marriage ruling, day after he backed ObamaCare

and more..

"Five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law. Stealing this issue from the people will for many cast a cloud over same-sex marriage, making a dramatic social change that much more difficult to accept," Roberts wrote.

 

[Silhouette]

So new. But it just seems that every time I hear about or see a gay male couple adopting, it's boys.

And your feelings about lesbian couples adopting girls is equally negative?

Yes, and that is from personal anecdotes. I once trusted to send my daughter over to a lesbian couple's house where they had three daughters and one son (who was a neglected beta-boy in the making). My daughter came home from spending the night when she was about 8 years old and reported that it was "so gross! They were on top of each other on their bed with the door open and making noise so we all could hear." Apparently they insisted on keeping their bedroom door open.

And yes, I've noticed lesbians have a more difficult situation. They long for girls of course. Another lesbian I knew had both a daughter and son. Constantly she told me "I hope my daughter turns out to be a lesbian". And she did every thing she could to influence her daughter in that direction. Her son she neglected horribly, treated like crap, like an outsider. She never paid any attention to his life while she doted every waking minute over her daughter's life and activities.

I could go on and on. Remember, I used to live near SF, CA. Just one horror story after another when it comes to children being raised in this environment. Justice Alito said that nobody could predict what the long term ramifications would be of this new type of no-father/no-mother parenting would bring society to. That isn't necessarily so. If you did an anonymous poll of people in the outskirts of the Bay Area, where they've been at this experiment for decades now, you'd see that kids raised in gay homes are suffering. Especially boys raised in lesbian homes. That would have to be the worst case scenario and would be one of my questions on the anonymous poll.

One typical example from the Bay Area, CA: Boy Drugged By Lesbian "Parents" To Be A Girl | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[Silhouette]

"Four Supreme Court Justices Weigh in on How June's Gay Marriage Decision Was Improper"
And they are entitled to express their subjective, errant, and personal opinions as private citizens...As a fact of Constitutional law, however, their opinions are wrong....The arguments of the dissenting justices are in conflict with settled, accepted 14th Amendment jurisprudence: that a class of persons cannot be denied access to laws they're eligible to participate in predicated solely on who they are.

What "class" do gays belong to? Near as I can tell it is "just some of the Court's favorite deviant sex behaviors but not others". Can you name the class they belong to and what makes them that class? For instance, you could say "people who are habitually-attracted to the same gender sexually". Something like that.