Lifestyle-Marriage Equality Slugout: State Authority vs Federal?

[Syriusly]

LOL......so you think that anyone who can't understand your bizarre posts is a shill......whatever dude- Sklyar actually makes an attempt to argue with you- I can't even figure what the hell you think you are arguing for.

like i said, it merely requires a clue and a Cause. why do you believe you even have any position on any argument, if you don't have a Cause for it on a not-for-profit basis?

whatever dude- Sklyar actually makes an attempt to argue with you- I can't even figure what the hell you think you are arguing for

If you don't understand the concept, why not let someone else do it?

So far no one seems to understand whatever concept you think you are espousing.

If you want to be understood then explain differently.
If you don't- well then you are just trolling.

Your not understanding the simple concepts involved does not equal me trolling.

If you do not want to be understood- then you are trolling.

If you want to be understood you need to make an effort to explain your concepts.

If you don't- you are just trolling.

 

[danielpalos]

All you have is diversions not serious questions indicating you even have any clue or any Cause.

 

[Syriusly]

All you have is diversions not serious questions indicating you even have any clue or any Cause.

Who do you imagine you are speaking to?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Lifestyle-Marriage Equality Slugout: State Authority vs Federal?"

This has likely already been pointed out but bears repeating nonetheless.

The Marriage Cases before the Supreme Court have nothing to do with Federal authority versus state authority.

The conflict is between same-sex couples and their states of residence, where those states refuse to allow same-sex couples access to state marriage law gay Americans are eligible to participate in. Same-sex couples so disadvantaged have sought relief in the Federal courts because measures denying same-sex couples access to marriage law violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

The states could have easily avoided involvement of the Federal courts had they simply allowed same-sex couples access to marriage law in accordance with the Constitution.

The OP and others hostile to gay Americans are in fact wrong to attempt to contrive this into some sort of ridiculous 'states' rights' issue; the states have no authority to deny American citizens their civil liberties.

 

[danielpalos]

All you have is diversions not serious questions indicating you even have any clue or any Cause.

Who do you imagine you are speaking to?

Those of the opposing view, of course, dear, seriously.

I believe this would never have become an issue, with a Constitutional office of public defender, as there is for public "offenders".

Perjury against the People or Lying to the Electorate of the United States in their office of public Trust, may be better enforced, on the State's dime, rather than on the Individual's dime.

 

[Syriusly]

All you have is diversions not serious questions indicating you even have any clue or any Cause.

Who do you imagine you are speaking to?

Those of the opposing view, of course, dear, seriously.

I believe this would never have become an issue, with a Constitutional office of public defender, as there is for public "offenders".

Perjury against the People or Lying to the Electorate of the United States in their office of public Trust, may be better enforced, on the State's dime, rather than on the Individual's dime.

How can there be any who have an opposing view, when none of us understand whatever view it is you are espousing?

I don't oppose your view- I have no idea what your 'view' is.

 

[danielpalos]

Ok. My view is that supply side economics should be supplying us with better governance at lower cost, not "trickle down".

We could be lowering our Tax burden merely by having more Faith in the execution of our own laws.

The current frivolity in legal venues on the Peoples' of the various States' dime, is an egregious example.

There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the law as enumerated in Article 4, Section 2 upon appeal to the general government and that Body of laws.

 

[Syriusly]

Ok. My view is that supply side economics should be supplying us with better governance at lower cost, not "trickle down".

We could be lowering our Tax burden merely by having more Faith in the execution of our own laws.

The current frivolity in legal venues on the Peoples' of the various States' dime, is an egregious example.

There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the law as enumerated in Article 4, Section 2 upon appeal to the general government and that Body of laws.

What does that have to do with the topic of legal marriage for same gender couples?

 

[bodecea]

"Lifestyle-Marriage Equality Slugout: State Authority vs Federal?"

This has likely already been pointed out but bears repeating nonetheless.

The Marriage Cases before the Supreme Court have nothing to do with Federal authority versus state authority.

The conflict is between same-sex couples and their states of residence, where those states refuse to allow same-sex couples access to state marriage law gay Americans are eligible to participate in. Same-sex couples so disadvantaged have sought relief in the Federal courts because measures denying same-sex couples access to marriage law violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

The states could have easily avoided involvement of the Federal courts had they simply allowed same-sex couples access to marriage law in accordance with the Constitution.

The OP and others hostile to gay Americans are in fact wrong to attempt to contrive this into some sort of ridiculous 'states' rights' issue; the states have no authority to deny American citizens their civil liberties.

And for those who keep harping that there is no comparison between the black civil rights movement and the gay marriage movement....there's your comparison....right. there.

 

[danielpalos]

Ok. My view is that supply side economics should be supplying us with better governance at lower cost, not "trickle down".

We could be lowering our Tax burden merely by having more Faith in the execution of our own laws.

The current frivolity in legal venues on the Peoples' of the various States' dime, is an egregious example.

There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the law as enumerated in Article 4, Section 2 upon appeal to the general government and that Body of laws.

What does that have to do with the topic of legal marriage for same gender couples?

did you miss it?

There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the law as enumerated in Article 4, Section 2 upon appeal to the general government and that Body of laws.

 

[Silhouette]

did you miss it?
There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the law as enumerated in Article 4, Section 2 upon appeal to the general government and that Body of laws.

And what of ignorance of the voice of children (who cannot vote to affect their future) in the marriage discussion. Did you miss that?

FROM THE PRINCE'S TRUST STUDY: http://www.princes-trust.org.uk/pdf/Youth_Index_jan2011.pdf
Page 8 (the left side on the green background)

In addition to indexing the happiness and wellbeing of young people, the report explores some significant demographic differences between young people. They include a comparison between those not in education employment or training with their peers...those without a positive role model of their gender in their lives (women without a positive female role model and men without a positive male role model) and their peers...those with fewer than five GCSEs graded A* to C (or equivalent) with their peers... Respondents are asked how happy and confident they are in different areas of their life. The responses are converted to a numerical scale, resulting in a number out of 100-- with 100 representing entirely happy or confident and zero being not at all happy or confident.

Page 10 (The bold largest heading above the material that followed it)

Young people without a role model of the same gender in their lives

Teens without parent role model are 67 per cent less likely to get a job Daily Mail Online

Young men with no male role models in their lives and women without a mother figure struggle to keep their lives on track, a hard-hitting report warns today. The Prince’s Trust youth index, the largest survey of its kind, found that....67 per cent more likely to be unemployed than their counterparts. They are also significantly more likely to stay unemployed for longer than their peers, the report suggests....It found that young men with no male role model are 50 per cent more likely to abuse drugs and young females in the corresponding position are significantly more likely to drink to excess..

Young men with no male role model to look up to were twice as likely to turn or consider turning to crime as a result of being unemployed...The report, which was based on interviews with 2,170 16 to 25-year-olds...These young men are also three times more likely to feel down or depressed all of the time and significantly more likely to admit that they cannot remember the last time they felt proud...They are also significantly less likely to feel happy and confident than those with male role models, according to the figures....The Prince’s Trust report, which was carried out by YouGov, suggests young people without male role models are more than twice as likely to lack a sense of belonging.

 

[Syriusly]

Ok. My view is that supply side economics should be supplying us with better governance at lower cost, not "trickle down".

We could be lowering our Tax burden merely by having more Faith in the execution of our own laws.

The current frivolity in legal venues on the Peoples' of the various States' dime, is an egregious example.

There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the law as enumerated in Article 4, Section 2 upon appeal to the general government and that Body of laws.

What does that have to do with the topic of legal marriage for same gender couples?

did you miss it?

There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the law as enumerated in Article 4, Section 2 upon appeal to the general government and that Body of laws.

What does that have to do with the topic of legal marriage for same gender couples?

 

[Syriusly]

did you miss it?
There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the law as enumerated in Article 4, Section 2 upon appeal to the general government and that Body of laws.

And what of ignorance of the voice of children (who cannot vote to affect their future) in the marriage discussion. Did you miss that?

Justice Kennedy is concerned about the voice of children in the marriage discussion:

"There is an immediate legal injury and that's the voice of these children," he said. "There's some 40,000 children in California, according to the Red Brief, that live with same-sex parents, and they want their parents to have full recognition and full status. The voice of those children is important in this case, don't you think?"

 

[Silhouette]

There is a long term legal injury to untold 100s of millions of kids by ignoring the Prince's Trust survey. So the Justices will have to throw both up on the scales to see which has the most impact on the most number of kids over time..

That is new information that they will have to weigh. To my knowledge, nobody brought up the Prince's Trust survey at the hearing of Windsor when Kennedy wrote that opinion. If it was, would you direct me to the transcripts where that was discussed in Windsor/Prop 8?

 

[Syriusly]

There is a long term legal injury to untold 100s of millions of kids by ignoring the Prince's Trust survey.

Justice Kennedy is concerned about the voice of children in the marriage discussion:

"There is an immediate legal injury and that's the voice of these children," he said. "There's some 40,000 children in California, according to the Red Brief, that live with same-sex parents, and they want their parents to have full recognition and full status. The voice of those children is important in this case, don't you think?"

 

[danielpalos]

did you miss it?
There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the law as enumerated in Article 4, Section 2 upon appeal to the general government and that Body of laws.

And what of ignorance of the voice of children (who cannot vote to affect their future) in the marriage discussion. Did you miss that?

FROM THE PRINCE'S TRUST STUDY: http://www.princes-trust.org.uk/pdf/Youth_Index_jan2011.pdf
Page 8 (the left side on the green background)

In addition to indexing the happiness and wellbeing of young people, the report explores some significant demographic differences between young people. They include a comparison between those not in education employment or training with their peers...those without a positive role model of their gender in their lives (women without a positive female role model and men without a positive male role model) and their peers...those with fewer than five GCSEs graded A* to C (or equivalent) with their peers... Respondents are asked how happy and confident they are in different areas of their life. The responses are converted to a numerical scale, resulting in a number out of 100-- with 100 representing entirely happy or confident and zero being not at all happy or confident.

Page 10 (The bold largest heading above the material that followed it)

Young people without a role model of the same gender in their lives

Teens without parent role model are 67 per cent less likely to get a job Daily Mail Online

Young men with no male role models in their lives and women without a mother figure struggle to keep their lives on track, a hard-hitting report warns today. The Prince’s Trust youth index, the largest survey of its kind, found that....67 per cent more likely to be unemployed than their counterparts. They are also significantly more likely to stay unemployed for longer than their peers, the report suggests....It found that young men with no male role model are 50 per cent more likely to abuse drugs and young females in the corresponding position are significantly more likely to drink to excess..

Young men with no male role model to look up to were twice as likely to turn or consider turning to crime as a result of being unemployed...The report, which was based on interviews with 2,170 16 to 25-year-olds...These young men are also three times more likely to feel down or depressed all of the time and significantly more likely to admit that they cannot remember the last time they felt proud...They are also significantly less likely to feel happy and confident than those with male role models, according to the figures....The Prince’s Trust report, which was carried out by YouGov, suggests young people without male role models are more than twice as likely to lack a sense of belonging.

Why so much concern for the pounds of social spending the right always complains about?

 

[danielpalos]

Ok. My view is that supply side economics should be supplying us with better governance at lower cost, not "trickle down".

We could be lowering our Tax burden merely by having more Faith in the execution of our own laws.

The current frivolity in legal venues on the Peoples' of the various States' dime, is an egregious example.

There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the law as enumerated in Article 4, Section 2 upon appeal to the general government and that Body of laws.

What does that have to do with the topic of legal marriage for same gender couples?

did you miss it?

There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the law as enumerated in Article 4, Section 2 upon appeal to the general government and that Body of laws.

What does that have to do with the topic of legal marriage for same gender couples?

are you sure you have a clue or a Cause as to the underlying issues?

 

[danielpalos]

did you miss it?
There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the law as enumerated in Article 4, Section 2 upon appeal to the general government and that Body of laws.

And what of ignorance of the voice of children (who cannot vote to affect their future) in the marriage discussion. Did you miss that?

Justice Kennedy is concerned about the voice of children in the marriage discussion:

"There is an immediate legal injury and that's the voice of these children," he said. "There's some 40,000 children in California, according to the Red Brief, that live with same-sex parents, and they want their parents to have full recognition and full status. The voice of those children is important in this case, don't you think?"

We are not Sparta, Individuals have rights and a Ninth Amendment, and its State equivalents.

 

[danielpalos]

There is a long term legal injury to untold 100s of millions of kids by ignoring the Prince's Trust survey. So the Justices will have to throw both up on the scales to see which has the most impact on the most number of kids over time..

That is new information that they will have to weigh. To my knowledge, nobody brought up the Prince's Trust survey at the hearing of Windsor when Kennedy wrote that opinion. If it was, would you direct me to the transcripts where that was discussed in Windsor/Prop 8?

Since when does the right claim the Government can do a better job at raising children, than Individuals? Public policy constitutes public Use.

 

[Skylar]

"Lifestyle-Marriage Equality Slugout: State Authority vs Federal?"

This has likely already been pointed out but bears repeating nonetheless.

The Marriage Cases before the Supreme Court have nothing to do with Federal authority versus state authority.

The conflict is between same-sex couples and their states of residence, where those states refuse to allow same-sex couples access to state marriage law gay Americans are eligible to participate in. Same-sex couples so disadvantaged have sought relief in the Federal courts because measures denying same-sex couples access to marriage law violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

Yeah, Silo already knows all of this. He just hopes that his audience doesn't.