Silhouette
Gold Member
- Jul 15, 2013
- 25,815
- 1,938
- 265
Inspired here: Opponents in LGBT case agree: It's not about wedding cake
Well as it stands today, no state can, in the pure interest of Obergefell's judicial-legislation adding brand new protections for deviant sex behaviors to the Constitution, deny polyamorists (polygamists) to marry. You cannot wave a magic wand of discrimination against polygamists when you use a fabricated interpretation of our Constitution's equality-Amendment (14th) to "legalize" other deviant sex behaviors' marriage across the 50 states by power of the 5 Justices who essentially "just said so". A majority-rejected deviant sex behavior practitioner is a majority-rejected deviant sex practitioner. All are welcome under that judicial logic or none are. Who decides which are acceptable and which aren't? 5 Justices on the US Supreme Court? Or the 300 million?
Even if that was true, the state has to get a benefit from the loss they extend to the marriage contract. With the new contract saying "no mother or father for life, banishment, for any child involved" the state no longer gets its traditional share of that contract. That traditional share they paid for with benefits was to insure children had a stable home with a mother and father for best statistical future-citizen production. Now they get nothing. They actually get worse than nothing in that at least single parents promise to deliver at some point in the future. "Gay marriage" is de facto anti-marriage as far as any state was concerned fiscally. It insures an inferior product for the money when before man/woman marriage insured a quality product for the money.
It was an illegal contract revision, Obergefell. It screwed the major beneficiaries of the old contract (the state and the children anticipated to arrive in marriage) and gave devil-may-care license to the subservient beneficiaries (those receiving benefits under state-controlled parameters). It would be like removing any stays on welfare distribution in the states, allowing the recipients to set terms on owning a mansion, six cars and a casino and still "be eligible" to receive state welfare benefits.
Absurd it is. Absurd and illegal. The Infancy Doctrine protects children from contracts with adults that deprive them of psychological necessities. Gay marriage contracts BANISHES children involved from either a father or mother, for life. That is an illegal contract upon its face. The ID says that any contract that contains terms like that involving children isn't merely challengable, it is void before the ink is dry. Ergo, gay marriage is void. The Gay Marriage vs Children's Rights Impending Legal-Collision Looms Closer
Well as it stands today, no state can, in the pure interest of Obergefell's judicial-legislation adding brand new protections for deviant sex behaviors to the Constitution, deny polyamorists (polygamists) to marry. You cannot wave a magic wand of discrimination against polygamists when you use a fabricated interpretation of our Constitution's equality-Amendment (14th) to "legalize" other deviant sex behaviors' marriage across the 50 states by power of the 5 Justices who essentially "just said so". A majority-rejected deviant sex behavior practitioner is a majority-rejected deviant sex practitioner. All are welcome under that judicial logic or none are. Who decides which are acceptable and which aren't? 5 Justices on the US Supreme Court? Or the 300 million?
Even if that was true, the state has to get a benefit from the loss they extend to the marriage contract. With the new contract saying "no mother or father for life, banishment, for any child involved" the state no longer gets its traditional share of that contract. That traditional share they paid for with benefits was to insure children had a stable home with a mother and father for best statistical future-citizen production. Now they get nothing. They actually get worse than nothing in that at least single parents promise to deliver at some point in the future. "Gay marriage" is de facto anti-marriage as far as any state was concerned fiscally. It insures an inferior product for the money when before man/woman marriage insured a quality product for the money.
It was an illegal contract revision, Obergefell. It screwed the major beneficiaries of the old contract (the state and the children anticipated to arrive in marriage) and gave devil-may-care license to the subservient beneficiaries (those receiving benefits under state-controlled parameters). It would be like removing any stays on welfare distribution in the states, allowing the recipients to set terms on owning a mansion, six cars and a casino and still "be eligible" to receive state welfare benefits.
Absurd it is. Absurd and illegal. The Infancy Doctrine protects children from contracts with adults that deprive them of psychological necessities. Gay marriage contracts BANISHES children involved from either a father or mother, for life. That is an illegal contract upon its face. The ID says that any contract that contains terms like that involving children isn't merely challengable, it is void before the ink is dry. Ergo, gay marriage is void. The Gay Marriage vs Children's Rights Impending Legal-Collision Looms Closer
