If selling a gay couple a wedding cake means a "Christian" baker participated in the marriage...

[Silhouette]

Those practices are just as legitimate as two dudes forcing kids to not ever know a mother via contract. Just as barbaric.

Uh, dude, 50% of marriages end in divorce... By your logic, people should be kept in marriages as long....

Courts in divorce spend over half the time making settlement guaranteeing kids continue to get their benefit from the contract in contact continuing with both mother and father; unless there is a safety issue.

Next?

 

[JoeB131]

Courts in divorce spend over half the time making settlement guaranteeing kids continue to get their benefit from the contract in contact continuing with both mother and father; unless there is a safety issue.

That's why we have so many deadbeat and absentee dads, because the courts are doing a bang up job.

Hey, here's a crazy idea, before you tell the gays what they should or shouldn't be doing, maybe get your own house in order.

 

[Silhouette]

Courts in divorce spend over half the time making settlement guaranteeing kids continue to get their benefit from the contract in contact continuing with both mother and father; unless there is a safety issue.

That's why we have so many deadbeat and absentee dads, because the courts are doing a bang up job.

Hey, here's a crazy idea, before you tell the gays what they should or shouldn't be doing, maybe get your own house in order.

I don’t have a contract banning children from a father or mother for life.

 

[JoeB131]

I don’t have a contract banning children from a father or mother for life.

Sure you do. It's called "No Fault Divorce". You can walk away from a marriage free and clear, if you want to.

So I think it's hysterical that you get all upset that a few gay people who get married might adopt kids when you have millions of kids who by your weird definition, are being harmed by divorce.

Reality. Kids are usually fine.

 

[Silhouette]

I don’t have a contract banning children from a father or mother for life.

Sure you do. It's called "No Fault Divorce". You can walk away from a marriage free and clear, if you want to.

So I think it's hysterical that you get all upset that a few gay people who get married might adopt kids when you have millions of kids who by your weird definition, are being harmed by divorce.

Reality. Kids are usually fine.

Divorce by gays are harming too. So all things equal we return to the topic, which is what children got out of marriage (and divorce): a mother and father both. Like you had. Like I had. That benefit was stolen from them illegally in 2015 without their participation at the negotiation table. Indeed the Court went to lengths to ban them and "speak for them" on their behalf. Even to the point of denying those with gay parents the right to submit amicus briefs about their unpleasant experiences being legally denied either a mother or father for life.

The Hearing was rigged against kids while using kids as rationale to deprive kids of their key benefit of marriage. It was like tying up a rape victim and then screaming above their screams "they LOVE this!....this is GOOD for them!!"...

 

[JoeB131]

Divorce by gays are harming too. So all things equal we return to the topic, which is what children got out of marriage (and divorce): a mother and father both. Like you had. Like I had. That benefit was stolen from them illegally in 2015 without their participation at the negotiation table.

Yeah, but you see, my parents wanted to stay married. no one forced them to stay married. When my eldest sister was born out of wedlock, no one forced her sperm donor to marry my mom. It's called "Freedom", something you guys are all for when applied to white straight people.

I know gay couples who've done a fine job, and I know straight couples who have the parenting skills of feral wolves.

That benefit was stolen from them illegally in 2015 without their participation at the negotiation table. Indeed the Court went to lengths to ban them and "speak for them" on their behalf. Even to the point of denying those with gay parents the right to submit amicus briefs about their unpleasant experiences being legally denied either a mother or father for life.

Yeah, they need to work out their daddy issues somewhere else. I hear that Polekatz is hiring.

The Hearing was rigged against kids while using kids as rationale to deprive kids of their key benefit of marriage. It was like tying up a rape victim and then screaming above their screams "they LOVE this!....this is GOOD for them!!"...

AGAIN, no one is forcing straight people to stay in bad marriages,and gay folks were having kids LONG before Obergefell.

 

[Silhouette]

AGAIN, no one is forcing straight people to stay in bad marriages,and gay folks were having kids LONG before Obergefell.

Your strawmen are nice. But we don’t set standards based on exceptions. Sorry your childhood sucked. We set standards based on the propensity of data that shows kids over all do best with both a mother & father. I’m sure some kids who never wear seat belts come out just fine. But that’s not the standard we set.

There have never been two people of the same gender who have made kids together. There is always a father & mother.

 

[JoeB131]

Your strawmen are nice. But we don’t set standards based on exceptions. Sorry your childhood sucked. We set standards based on the propensity of data that shows kids over all do best with both a mother & father. I’m sure some kids who never wear seat belts come out just fine. But that’s not the standard we set.

I'm debating reporting you for attacking my family.

Okay, let's look at that. 50% of marriages end in divorce. That's actually the "Norm". People stay married long enough to realize what a bad idea it was. (This is why I'm all for gay marriage. Why should just the straights have to suffer.)

There have never been two people of the same gender who have made kids together. There is always a father & mother.

No, there's always been a mother and a sperm donor. Not every sperm donor deserves to be called a father.

 

[Silhouette]

I'm debating reporting you for attacking my family.....
No, there's always been a mother and a sperm donor. Not every sperm donor deserves to be called a father.

Be sure to report your own post #546 when you do. I was responding to your tale of woe in your family.

Again, you seem to be trying to set standards from exceptions, not the rule. Just because some kids have survived not wearing seatbelts, doesn’t mean we change the standards we know suit all children best.

 

[JoeB131]

Be sure to report your own post #546 when you do. I was responding to your tale of woe in your family.

Okay... reported. Gave you a chance to apologize, you didn't.

Again, you seem to be trying to set standards from exceptions, not the rule. Just because some kids have survived not wearing seatbelts, doesn’t mean we change the standards we know suit all children best.

um, no, i don't think i want the government regulating households the way they regulate traffic. I don't think you do, either.

 

[Silhouette]

Again, you seem to be trying to set standards from exceptions, not the rule. Just because some kids have survived not wearing seatbelts, doesn’t mean we change the standards we know suit all children best.

um, no, i don't think i want the government regulating households the way they regulate traffic. I don't think you do, either.

Driving requires a license. Marriage requires a license. There are qualifiers for both. Blind people or those who don’t agree to strap kids in safety belts don’t get a license. Two people seeking a contract to banish kids involved from a mother or father for life don’t get a license in most states prior to illegal Obergefell.

 

[JoeB131]

Driving requires a license. Marriage requires a license. There are qualifiers for both. Blind people or those who don’t agree to strap kids in safety belts don’t get a license. Two people seeking a contract to banish kids involved from a mother or father for life don’t get a license in most states prior to illegal Obergefell.

Um, actually, prior to Obergefell, the country looked like this.

It was already legal in most states.

Sorry, here's the thing. The ability to have kids and marriage licenses are TWO SEPARATE THINGS.

Lots of people get married with absolutely NO INTENT to have kids.

Lots of people have kids with no intents to get married.

Nobody stays in an unhappy marriage because of the kids unless they are stupid. They actually do more damage that way.

 

[Silhouette]

Which states by legislative or judicial fiat? I know for a fact CA still has gay marriage as illegal in the state Constitution. Once Obergefell’s plethora of fatal legal flaws are revisited, states where democracy on the question was stolen, like CA, will have standing to reverse the theft.

 

[JoeB131]

Which states by legislative or judicial fiat? I know for a fact CA still has gay marriage as illegal in the state Constitution. Once Obergefell’s plethora of fatal legal flaws are revisited, states where democracy on the question was stolen, like CA, will have standing to reverse the theft.

You keep telling yourself that guy, but here's what I keep explaining to you.

Big Corporations, the TRUE MASTERS of the right, have decided this is no longer a fight they want to have. They've told the politicians and the judges this is no longer a fight they want to have.

The Court isn't going to undo millions of marriages to make a few religious bigots happy.

 

[Silhouette]

Overturning illegal Obergefell will not nullify the current motherless/fatherless marriage contracts. Divorce will take care of that via attrition. It will however return the power to the individual states & restore Windsor as the law of the land.

California & many other states will then have to turn back to the voters and ask their permission.

 

[JoeB131]

Overturning illegal Obergefell will not nullify the current motherless/fatherless marriage contracts. Divorce will take care of that via attrition. It will however return the power to the individual states & restore Windsor as the law of the land.

California & many other states will then have to turn back to the voters and ask their permission.

Naw, guy, Obergefell won't be overturned because the court won't declare that they are just another political body, whose decisions can be turned to meet a political need.

I don't think you want to give it back to the voters... It would be very bad for you...

Poll: Approval of same-sex marriage in U.S. reaches new high

 

[Silhouette]

Naw, guy, Obergefell won't be overturned because the court won't declare that they are just another political body, whose decisions can be turned to meet a political need.

Well see now that’s funny. Because that is what the Court did with Windsor using Obergefell just two short years later. So a fundamental reversal of powers governing gay marriage nationwide has already happened. And with light speed.

 

[JoeB131]

Well see now that’s funny. Because that is what the Court did with Windsor using Obergefell just two short years later. So a fundamental reversal of powers governing gay marriage nationwide has already happened. And with light speed.

Most sensible people saw Windsor setting the stage for Obergefell, but I'm sure that you really need to believe that homophobia is still popular even though even the Right wants the issue to go away.

 

[Silhouette]

Well see now that’s funny. Because that is what the Court did with Windsor using Obergefell just two short years later. So a fundamental reversal of powers governing gay marriage nationwide has already happened. And with light speed.

Most sensible people saw Windsor setting the stage for Obergefell, but I'm sure that you really need to believe that homophobia is still popular even though even the Right wants the issue to go away.

How do 56 reiterations in Windsor saying states exclusively have the power to regulate marriage & the fed does not...turn into “setting the stage” for the Court to say now just five unelected federal lawyers have all the power taken from states” to grant just some deviant sex behaviors (but not others) the “right” to marry”...citing the all-inclusive 14th Amendment?

That’s like saying Roe v Wade was setting the stage to make abortion illegal.

 

[JoeB131]

How do 56 reiterations in Windsor saying states exclusively have the power to regulate marriage & the fed does not...turn into “setting the stage” for the Court to say now just five unelected federal lawyers have all the power taken from states” to grant just some deviant sex behaviors (but not others) the “right” to marry”...citing the all-inclusive 14th Amendment?

That’s like saying Roe v Wade was setting the stage to make abortion illegal.

Well, since you want to use THAT comparison, let's play.

There's actually a whole lot of stuff in Roe v. Wade that allows the states to set limits on abortions... Almost all of which were set aside by Doe. v. Boland, which stated that the health of the mother overruled any concerns for the fetus. The court realized what they had done, as they issued both rulings on the same day.

Now, by comparison, Windsor did leave the states some wiggle room, but essentially declared that for Federal purposes, if one state recognized a gay marriage, all the other states had to as well. Just like you an marry your first cousin in Texas or a 14 year old in Virginia.

So pretty much after Windsor, all the lower courts started ruling in favor of gay marriage and setting aside state laws. That's pretty much what the court was setting it up for.